tv Call-in with Sharyl Attkisson The Smear CSPAN November 25, 2017 1:00pm-2:01pm EST
>> people were duped often into voting for donald trump. >> there is that view out there, but is a talk about in "the smear" if you actually watch the rallies of hillary clinton and donald trump, i tried to watch almost every one and if you talk to people outside the big cities, which i did a lot of,
that is what led me to predict in advance that donald trump would be president when so many others couldn't see that. think you get a different picture than this sort of stereo type that's bandied about commonly. >> tall the smear into election 2016. were there campaigns going on sub rosa. >> totally. i think 2016 was the epitomy of all the culmination of factors, whether it's social media, these smear groups, the smear industry in washington, dc that has grown to huge levels. all the tactics, everything came into play in 2016 and more money was spent, i mean, just gazillions, more actually by hillary clinton and her supporters than on donald trump, far more, and yet i guess the lesson is, even though in my view, as i say in the book, the liberal side and the hillary clinton side tended to permeate the press and the narrative against trump was ubiquitous and
yet he won so i guess commentary of that is that despite all the money spent, despite many republicans, democrats and the media against donald trump, he somehow defied the smear and that's why i call him the wild card candidate of the book. >> what is the smear industry. >> the smear industry is a collection of groups i have defined and some of them are paid groups, nonprofits, i'll give you examples, pr firms that have crisis management functions. llcs, global law firms, they're nonprofits, they're charities in some cases, web sites, they all work together, they all have components that are designed to take them ideas they oppose, often by personally attacking the people most eloquent at expressing the yesterdays they oppose. and -- the ideas they oppose and what differentiate, ate fleece my definition, smear from the truth because there are often elements of truth within the smear, but its purpose is rited
in annihilation and those who are directing the smear often hidden from the public. want to remain invisible and look like they're an organic grassroots every time when they're actually pulling the springs to smear an another idea or people or group. >> host: can you put a dollar figure on the industry. >> guest: i can't. it's multibillions but because it's not broken down that way, let's say every p.r. firm has a component of crisis management that falls are in the category but not broken down that way. how much they spend on that, but it's big money, everybody knows that when the call goes in, when someone has to defense themselves or deflect or apack and to the call goes do crisis management folks or strategic communications people, these are often elements of smears the most basic level and also many hidden ways the smears go on. whether they're paid people making comments on the federal register, whether there are people that are paid to
represent the use of their name, to sign op-edded, i would say huge up in ouch op-edded it november the majority are now orchestrated and written by somebody else but signed by someone, and the newspapers know this and the publications often know this, it's sort of an open -- that's how ideas are sometimes either forwarded or stopped and/or people are smeared. >> we have also been hearing recently about opposition research firms and their role in smearing. is this also a growing industry? >> guest: absolutely. opposition research is key to nearly every serious campaign, unfortunately. if you're just an average american that doesn't want to think dirt is dug up but candidates have to do due diligence, want to find out what they'll know. sometimes they offer research themselves to find out what is findable about themselves and that is a big industry and those people get paid a lot of money. >> host: what are you doing these days? by the way, we want to take
calls. what your day job these days? sunny? my time is largely consumed producing my weekly show called "fur measure," and it appears on sinclair stations nationwide, we're expanding really week by week to more stations. we are in 43 million house hold, and so it's basically a straight news show going to do stories that have not been done to death all week. for example, my lead story this week, visited three countries, the philippines, singapore, and korea, to talk about china's one belt, one road economic policy which thens to put the united states in a back seat. in seethe asia. why should we care? i spend time having people
explain it and explain it in fairly simple terms so people can grasp the comments they don't have time to research. >> host: there is a tie-in between your first book, "stonewalled money and your second book" the smear." >> guest: i do. i consider though the smear "as a sequel. i saw emergence of movements to control the news and groups becoming very good at getting their nose under the tent of new organizations to influence what we.on tv and don't put on tv. i've been left pbs, and this book take us it further and looks deeply in the industry, inside the industry in a way don't think has been done before that has developed largely unseen by the american public but a multibillion dollar industry that halt the summary at its roots. >> host: i don't think you have ever really publicly discussed your personal politics but in
many levels you're presumed to be a conservative. >> guest: i think now that's definitely the propaganda put out, which is fine if peach want to think that. used to be called i think largely liberal. so, i think you could pick pieces of what i've done of the years and make an argument i'm anticorporate, pro corporate, liberal, conservative, what you ant washington to cherrypick but try to do story that are underserve or angles underserve on stories, and just take common sense look at it and ask questions. so, i have many devoted liberal fans and devoted conservative fans. have received investigative emmy awards for investigating my most recent one was for investigating republicans, not liberals and have won them for investigating liberals. most of my reporting historically i'm really not very interested in politics. don't like it. it seems to come into play or people want to pigeon hole what you do into a political hole but most of what die is
nonpolitical. more just watchdogging whatever they powers may be. >> host: in "the more" david block plays large local. >> guest: i devote lot of ink to him because the people interviewed, he conservative smear and liberal smear artist name in almost every instance as someone who is uniquely successful at what he has done with this network of nonprofits, llcs, web sites, under many different names, who appears as though they're newt that sometimes authorities, to weeps many people are behind them when it's really a fairly small group. been extremely successful in campaigns against people who vote against hillary clinton or other idea head supports and he also fascinating because you probably know, he began as a conservative smear artist going everybody the clintons, which we talk about in the book quite a bit, and then he switched sides and became someone who works for the clinton, smearing people on the other side. so for many recents a really
fascinating character. >> host: shary at kiss son is our guest. >> thank you for taking my calm don't consider myself republican or democratic oindependentment i have voted for both bodies accordingly. i look for -- make my own research and vote according with who i think is the best for great country that i love, i arrived being illegal -- [indiscernible] -- i find this great country that i fully love so much.
i went to europe, traveled around europe, visit countries because my major is languages. a difference between this country and the united states of america. -- >> host: thank you for calling in. we appreciate hearing your voice and your view. let's hit the other coast and let hear from guillermo in los angeles. hi. >> caller: good morning, sir. thank you. thank you for this enlightens program. i'm a yellow dog democrat and i have voted straight democrat since jimmy carter, and when donald trump came down the elevator -- the escalator -- 2016, knew he was going to win. he touched something in me i never voted for him, would never vote for him, i despise the man, but he touch a nerve. i knew he was going to win. i predicted it.
used to have a show on spanish radio and i told people, i'm hispanic, immigrant, and so i'm quite disagree with the authors opinion in the way. not so much a smear, is that people did not realize that donald trump represented -- he was touching a nerve. the immigration issue was gigantic. i knew many years somebody who will touch the immigration issue will win, and that is -- >> host: all right. all right. guillermo, thank you very much. does the smear cover the 2016 campaign and whether or not there were forces working for either hillary clinton or trump? >> guest: that's a big part of the book we planned to wrap it up right after the election with the results and then that happened and the fake news trend happened, which i dug into origins of fake news and the phrase as i think is a prop
began to term and the book was about that. i juaned to say yellow dog democrat means he has maybe some less liberal tendencies. trial to remember -- >> host: well, no. yellow dog democrat is somebody who will vote for the democrat even if it's a yellow dog. the blue dog democrats are we more moderate democrats. >> guest: many,es plan a refindded me, we asked people about their political leanings to -- >> host: would not vote for him even though he touched 0 nerve. i apologize if you're having -- >> guest: i think the point is, one point i would like to make is many americans are not in a box. if you say are you liberal or conservety, democrat or republican, many americans are on a sliding scale. on some issues they may feel one way, on other issues they may feel another and they're constant flay bit of flux depending on person experiences and our system fends to box
people in or try to-for-them to be boxed in because of our election system. i talk to a lot of people who don't feel comfort enable either box. >> host: okay, you mentioned that you look for the origin of fake news. what did you find? >> guest: well, when it rolled out, it felt luke the rollout of a propaganda campaign. went from -- i googled this -- almost never in use as a phrase to suddenly every headline every day, and i remember when president obama first introduced this north by chance, he spoke at carnegie melon and said there was a need for people, for someone to curate the news, and i thought, where is this coming from? so, i did some investigation and learned, i traced the origins of the effort to september 13, 2016, when a nonprofit called first draft, came up with the idea to go after news and fake news and then rollout happened from there president obama got onboard the news every day with talking about, hillary clinton
got onboard and it initiated as a liberal effort in my view, to steer people away from stories they didn't like and some of them were blatantly false: many conservative misinformation web sites but at its heart it was possibly an effort to shape and censor information the last place where it's free and people can go on the internet and the media doesn't control it and the democrats and republicans don't control it. look into who funded first draft because i like to knoll money -- follow the money, and their tax filings weren't filed, even though they're a nonprompt they told me their funding came from google. google's parent company, alphabet, started by eric smitted who started a first draft initiative. and he became a top hillary donors walk strategist for her campaign. starts to look like a coordinated effort. not that there's anything
illegal or improper but a coordinated effort to focus people on fake news. then, to make this long story a little longer, i talk about in the book how donald trump being the wild card he is, was able to co-op the phrase and where today people think he came up with it who don't know the origin. it was more of a hostile takeover. he didn't invent the phrase. >> you. >> host: i was going to ask you, you answered that, how a group, first draft, could take a phrase and it was reach president obama there had to be a line there, and you see that line as going through google and air schmid. >>? i see there was an effort on broad scale among the people that shaped narratives every day in the news, to put fake news on the plate of americans there was a plan, roll united states of this campaign, but it got out of their hands and i think donald trump may be the only politician that could have done what he did.
just said every time they called him that, he called them that. so by january of 2017 the "washington post," who loved the phrase for a while, was crying uncle and saying we need to retire that phrase. stop using that phrase. so part of the mostery of donald trump and his only ability to turn around propaganda or initiate his own propaganda. >> the most recent book is called "the smear" martha you're on with. >> i'm calling because i recently saw a program on hbo called "last week tonight" with john oliver, and on that program he was giving a story of the one-sided kind of national feed that was sent through sinclair stations to their local networks, on their local news
programs, and showing that the story was not changed in any way and read exactly the same on each station. i don't remember the story but it was rather one-sided, and i don't know if you're familiar with that program, but my question, i think, is related to sinclair broadcasterring, you may not know their politics too much but do you think that as sinclair broadcasting is supporting a -- release various companies in local markets in the control of multilocal station and newspapers? if you understand that question. it was -- again -- >> host: martha you're referring
to the media ownership changes the fcc is looking at currently. >> caller: exactly. sinclair. >> host: sinclair is looking at merger with the tribune broadcasting company. sharyl, anything you can or will address? >> guest: yes. can't tell you anything about corporate policy. my program is done under sinclair, and there's been a large propaganda movement, people who wouldn't normally know about our hear about station owners, now there's comedy shows as skis part for propaganda campaign to attack sinclair which is seen as a threat by the people who dominate the media landscape and people of certain political affiliationsment sinclair's owner is a conservative, wealthy, i think can billionaire, the ownership of them, just as i work for liberal billionaires when i work at cnn, ted turner, and cbs, reedstop, there are people connected politically would work at the top of these organizations who contribute money to democrats and republicans. i don't remember everybody
questioning it within worked for the liberal people for 30 years. it didn't real impact, is a saw, our news on a daily basis though, corporate bosses did not get intertwined with the daily news coverage. there are were other issues but doesn't mean they came into the mushroom and influenced or coverage i. think ted turner worked hard when it was acnn to make us stay factual it. likewise, sinclair at the top, the conservative who does head sinclair, is not enter feared with my programs. i've heard no interference compared to cnn -- i'm are so -- cbs toward the end had a great deal of interference trying to do independent stories. it's been a freshness to go into another independent program that doesn't try to shape the news and put out narrative. these are legitimate questions to be asked. i certainly don't blame people for saying, gosh, sinclair is owned bay conservative guy. what does that mean for your news? i would argue they should be
asking the same questions in fairness of the predominantly liberal organizations thoughts i've worked for net past, that also spin out story easers day from analysts one-sided, that u.s. measure runs on all the affiliate that are seen by many more people than the sinclair stations. so, you have to dig in and wonder why only one station owner is getting all this press on comedy talk shows and on capitol hill when the others have existed in that same bailiwick for some long, kind of unquestioningly by the same people. >> host: who is the owner of sinclair. >> guest: david smith, and he is probably not the owner, just the one that i dealt with when i was being hired. we discussed about my program being independent and i said, i wasn't really planning to work again in the business necessarily, and when they proposed an idea for me to do a program just like i used to do, the report used to do at cbs, which was just professional in nature and investigative, said
it cannot be conservative, not be anymore conservative that mysters at cbs were conservative or liberal. he said don't worry about that. you del people the proof, they'll probably be conservative. i said we can tell the truth and haven't had a bid of interference, so, again, less interference working for the conservative billionaires than i certainly had at cbs the last two years, working for a liberal billion year. >> that's the book "stonewalled." you alluded to this but the power of the internet when it comes comes to the smear campaign. >> guest: i almost got chills when i was speak us with one summary -- smear operator, military guy, we can start a whole movement with 140 characters and hand of fake twitter conditions and you look at the solicitation the government has put online, soliciting software for people maintain social media accounts,
fake social media accountants but look like they have individual ip addresses that rotate. they do it with connections, where if you look up these people, they'll have friends that look real and be friends with people you know, look like they do things and go places, why is the government, i why are corporations and political forces maintaining these fake account? they know social media is the number one way to influence opinion right now, whether it's votes or whenever delayed may want to get out and virtually control that dynamic and it give me chills. a rumor or innuendo or fake news if you want to call it that, that has been seen by relatively few people and do. >> can now develop a global following overnight and at the knownallal tricks available to manipulate images and photography and video that make something look like happened that didn't. this is vomited on the
landscape and is hard to separate fact from fission. >> host: let's hear from another caller. this is elizabeth in crested butte, colorado. how. >> caller: hello. i'm about to lose my mind. i'm tired of being patient with everybody. i think donald trump is a depraved moral coward and that his supporters are deliberately ignorant and dump as a box of rocks. thank you. >> host: and that was elizabeth in crest it butte, colorado. barbie in new newark, new york. >> caller: i heave a couple of questions mitchell brothers on toll me, you have enemies enemid then wouldn't tell me who my enemies are so man my own brother is my enemy. how does one -- i've been banned from academic associations and they wouldn't tell me why i was
banned. just i made people uncomfortable in any presentations. and i just wanted to know how does a person, an individual, who doesn't have much money -- find out if they do have enemies, if they're ladder at and called crazy and paranoid, and a lot of paranoid people are called paranoid and then they fine out we're telling the truth. people are trying to kill me and then they get killed. the other thing i wanted to know is do you know what news stands for? franklin fran sid what news stands for, news. do you know anything about -- >> barbie, tell us what does news stand for via ben franklin. >> caller: north, east, west, and south. >> host: very good. thank you, barbary, for calling in. sharyl, without addressing whatever her situation is
directly, have you ever been the target of a smear campaign, high level, low level? >> guest: yes. that's kind of the genesis of stonewalled and the smear, that i saw these organized groups going against not just me but other news reporters, pulitzer prize winners, "new york times" expert reporters, when they would get too close, almost as if you can expect more organized blowback from them calling to stations, calling corporate forces, working on social media against you, controversialize you and your report them closer you get to an important truth, the more of that you'll see. i remember saying to -- i said this i industry, the manipulating the news and calling and pressuring us, said they've government nothing but time. thisser is their time and we're ill equipped to fight back, always playing defense askn't effective. shouldn't we deal some sort of strategy so we know u.s. -- know
it exists but nobody has the time. we're just busy covering the news and doing our job against these multiboundarybillion dollr industries who are well-connected. they'll would do questionable things and perfectly legal thing us but they have a lot of money and time to controversialize reporters and stories to stop reporting. i've been targeted with menner somes one when guy to investigative reporter conferences and have other journalists complain of the same thing but in a fearful sense because it's not as though they fear the groups like media matters, david brock or the conservative equivalents but they fear their bosses listen to them. they know that these are astro turf efforts that don't present a segment of the public but they are afraid their bosses are moved and motivated by social media campaigns and the turnback and the quasinews blogosphere.
it's a deep network so, it is -- the woman talking about being called paranoid, those are key word used that have been tested, that are very effective to use against your enemy if you're a propagandaist, you call them mentally unstable. certain word its mention in "stone walled" you'll see over and over again when kind of a way to detect that a very might be going on because of the key phrases and third use against people and ideas. >> so today here at the miami book fair we talked athundershower jefferson morely about his new biography on james angleton of the cia. he was talking about how mr. angleton had developed kind of a fifth team. when it comes to the smear campaign and politics do you believe there is a deep state, subrose state, within the state,
controlling? >> guest: i guess it depends how you define it, but i know because i have many great sources under the obama administration and the trump administration and different federal agencies. some there are there under clinton or bush some people persist from administration to admission and argue it's not the president at the top that is pulling the strings. it's the group of faceless bureaucrats that most people don't know their name but they're controlling the information that goes to the president and they're controlling information that comes down, and are making sure certain thing does and don't happen. they're definitely is that layer and everybody knows that. we know people that work in that layer. i think there's an element of that. not sure if it fits the criteria -- people have different idea what they mean but definitely people, who they ever president is, obama, clinton, bush, trump work disagree with the president and
wait it our because any know they'll be there longer than the pruitt will be there. >> host: next call comes from jane, joshua tree, california good afternoon. >> guest: good afternoon. i'd like to speak to the first statement or early statement that this news -- these liberals control the news, and that gets my goat. i personally love radio. i was driving across the country to care of my elders in washington state and new mexico and turn on the radio dial, and year by year the radio band became a viewpoint on the radio game narrower and narrower. i live 20-miles from twenty nine palms marine base and i turn on my radio dial and it's far rest, christian preachers yelling at anybody that doesn't see exactly
the way they do are evil. and then it's rush limbaugh on the channels at the same time. spewing hate. this individual reol and hatred infecting the air with as for 30 years, and now it's at a crescendo point where radio stations in santa fe in seattle, all alternative voices are gone except for maybe an npr station. >> host: all right, jane, think we got the idea. conservative radio and in jane's view a takeover. ... i i'm talking about control of the news i'm not speaking to
the industry bandwidth. i'm talking about how special interest from both parties and corporations had been able to get their nose in the newsroom. and kind of make it report what they want to report on a given day. we've already hired them in our newsrooms as analysts and managers in reportersrs so now there is very little difference between the talking points we would be getting from an outsider and the talking points you get when you turn on the news. they are interested in, getting talking points and then becausese we often invite talking points on both sides. when all you are getting is the state run media or propaganda. in my view. rather than reporters with original stories.op
an f people are telling or i see it as a diversion from something else that could be more important. and have them on e-mail list. the mix of the blogs and so forth. they will laugh that stuff up. this is whatt i'm talking about when i take control of the news. during the 2014 congressional campaign the coke brothers became a big issue and kind of a evil issue for the democrats they would be on the senate floor and they would rail against the coke brothers. most of them did not know who
the coke brothers were. that was definitely coordinated. as i say there are grains of truth the reason i call him that is because the people that are trying to destroy the ideas are not upfront about their true motivations. they are rooted in annihilation of a target. they are trying to expose of what they say on the surface. they're trying to remove an enemy for example. they are interesting i googled today because someone raised the question there are so many charts done on their pubic u.s. ties they are so easy to find. summary people are focused on the coke brothers and i started to focus on them a
bit. they are in my book but not in the starring role they might have head. versus david brock. the coke brothers like many republicans or conservatives did not like donald trump and did not spend money on him. they kind of sat it out. it is part of theea reason why hillary clinton outmatched donald trump in terms of fundraising. the next call comes from guy in redding pa. i just want to put this out there. the movement that trumps there is a lot of he out there. with the highest office in the land.
they were going to vote for that. for that. i will have to hang up on you. i was having trouble the first words and then there was a lot of breakup. he talked about o the burr their movement did you trace that one back to an organized smear campaign according to those who were first to report on it it was start by hillary clinton. her supporters when she was running against barack obama there were quite a few smears from her smear artist that were responsible for quite a few of the big smears. when they were competitors. and then the conservative side picked up on this. the smears that were generated in some cases by hillary clinton. they took some of those and took on a n new life of their own. the in a dope goal documentation that it wouldts
pitch to them by one of the smear artist. i think it was sidney blumenthal. investigator reporters and tell me if i'm wrong. really can't be chummy with everybody. like a political reporter. you guys are a special breed.re i think before i was investigative reporter i was not chummy with these people. a lot of people in my industry do pal around. and ask if they live in the same community. a i was way outside of dc. it takes me two or three hours during rush-hour to get there.e. and i just don't move in that world. once in a while if i do get invited i don't usually go. i'm comfortable there.
i like being outside the circle looking in. i think this give me a different perspective and probably what became an investing of reporter who could turn up things in some cases that other people were not turning up. we have katie turner on this program yesterday. i ask if the journalists were legitimate targets for politicians and criticism and she said no but they are easy targets. we are easy targets and i think we are legitimate targets. i think a lot of the criticism that we are getting as an industry today and i say this in the smear is of our own making. they are amazing reporters. they are still doing great work. but our job is getting harder because of those in industry that we have allowed and they should drop criticism in my view. we are easy targets.
let's hear from charles in billings montana. most americans have seem to forgotten the smear campaign that went on by our own congressional people against hillary clinton over ben ghazi. they spent millions of their own dollars in investigated over and over again would you consider that a smear campaign. >> i think there are elements in that story as well. grains of truth that were escalated beyond proportions. there was a lot of fodder there. they were not generating a lot of stuff out of the air. in many cases there are elements of smears on both sides. the clintons were smearing the
women who were accusing bill clinton. includedpa david brock back. i think in any big national discussion you might be able to find efforts that i categorize as smear on both sides of the discussion. what is the best praise that you received personally and what is the best criticism that you have received personally people feel like they really had it. they now know the images that we run into on a daily life.
they say something like all your examples are on one side. factually incorrect. they might be listening to propaganda. i have heard and i read some of the reviews on amazon. some of them said it is stuff they arty know. and you do use examples from both for both republican and democratic side. i going to the voting smear of john kerry. all the way up to today. i don't represent the encyclopedic look. it is an antidote of look. in an industry that depends on who talk to me.
i took the lead from them as to what they thought was important. some people criticized that i left at thehe southern poverty law i did not have good information on them. i tried to write about the topics in the groups that i have good information on. from sources or other means and not to try to rehash and do encyclopedic look. what is an astroturf campaign. i talk about that in a stonewalled is not a term i made up. is designed to make it look like there is a grassroots effort of ordinary people behind the movement something good or maybe something against somebody when in fact it's a very will orchestrated movement by a group of people that want to make itt look that
way. you will see a lot of tactics there. you had 30 seconds. i just want to say that may jesus bless you all. thank you for that call. the most recent -- recent book. the first book stonewalled. intimidation and harassment in obama's washington. she is currently the host ofso full measure which can be seen where and when.
you have to look at your local listings or look at full measure .-dot news. you can watch anytime at full measure .-dot news. cheryl, thank you for being our guest here in miami. [indiscernible] please tell me a little bit about the book. with probably the lobbying. people worked inside government and then they go back out and they end up representing clients. and then they go back through the door. we have a random sample of names. and with students for about two years go through that.
and by doing that we essentially went through that. we can look at who they worked for and does give us an opportunity to see if they worked in the congress and the white house. where did most of them come from. that was all changing. most lobbyists. they are service in business managers. they end up doing the lobbying.
we find them different things. they go up in their own industry. they are really excellent. the gridlock. there background. they represent everything under the sun. with the industry and they are engaged on a wide variety of topics. they're not actually policy experts. if they can't get them there. it's pretty common. what is happening behind there. in the world today the end up writing the bill.
as opposed to the open committee room. these lobbyists come through. and explain about what to expect. to sense the political uncertainty. it turns out that the wealthiest ones. the political intelligence that they have there. how much money you spent a year on lobbying. we can say with certainty about $3.3 billion is spent on lobbying. we can get these numbers in they recorded their spending. in related work i also found that there is about one lobbyist has probably grown
with a lot of lobbyists in town. they can do their job and they could recruit their clients. the really strict law that requires them to do that. their number is probably seven or eight or nine million dollars. i study congress. but before i went to graduate school i decided not to come with lobbyists. and while you are doing your research for this book is there anything or any particular industry that you were surprised with. no, i had been studying lobbying long enough to know that every issue or industry
they all have lobbyist. what we are telling here. there is one time when the lobbyist they knew which ones were be named. and now they represent them do you think there well ever be a situation where lobbying will no longer exist. nor do we want that. all of the opportunities to speak through. and largely that is what they're doing. but the real problem as some kind of power is a little bit more expensive than other power. and what we see their is the
best organized. with the coverage here in washington they don't want to get rid of that. it is a real conundrum to think about how we do the least of it. so what would you like people to take away from reading this book. i think the story that i just told. the story was here with commentators. we want to drain the swamp. and that's not always true. they want to bring the swamp that those that they disagree with. i think one of the takeaways
here is that lobbying itself is not the problem. if the underlying cause is that congress themselves they no longer head that. and working at the white house. in the federal agencies just long enough that there to be able to make some money. i think the take away here may try to bring back the public spirit and working in the government for that it's really a steppingstone. book tv offers it for nonfiction authors and books.
and watch any of our past programs online book tv.org. here is a look at some of the best books of the year according to publishers weekly. they describe the family history. the curator of religion at the so man in the apparition us. inferior city new york university recalls the fiscal collapse in 1975. and how the city and the brush with that reshape ideas about government.
on how local state and federal legislation is responsible for america's segregated cities those homes sell for $30,400,000. here's her question. your question. the african-american families. they rented apartments from the city the white families gain that. today those homes are unaffordable for the working class people. today those homes sell for seven times national medium income. the working-class families
can't even afford to move to the suburbs. so today, we have a ratio of income. the african-american wealth is five to seven%. most families gain their wealth through housing equity. the enormous difference between 60% income ratio and 5% while ratio is almost entirely attributable to federal housing policy. the wealth gap is attributable to this. some of these authors have or will be appearing on book tv. you can watch them on our website i went over to london
several times when they have the hearings in the high court in london it was an inquiry. it was an inquiry into the murder in 2015. so i went over there in 2016 and attended the hearings and did some interviews so i will just give you a little bit of quick background. why and what happened. it seems as though these two men were hired by the ssb and one of them made friends and started coming to london and was trying to get consulting work. they didn't really had any concern.
they have pretty much devoted themselves to writing scathing criticisms. they have moved to london and the two of them just head this campaign. it was financed by him. they publicized everything they could about the corruption and the authoritarianism and everything else about the regime. he was not very will liked. and in november of 2006 him and another gentleman in the
pine bar of the millennial hotel they put that in the teapot. it took them three weeks today and it was only on the last day november 23 that they actually figured out what was the cause of death. it was not supposed to be discovered. meanwhile the two killers fled the british government has tried to have them
extradited. in fact he got a medal of honor from president putin and has been a member of parliament. i think the interesting thing as that he was viewed as a trader because he had worked for the fsb and that here all these things and so oddly enough i take a lot of the russians know he was killed by these two gentlemen and they were ordered by the fsb to do it but people kinda feel like he got what he deserved. i have other examples that i can't go into detail about right now. i would say that probably one of the most devastating killings was that of boris
them saw he was walking with his girlfriend. and people went by. it's very interesting that the killers they arrested almost immediately the killers. but again it's the same pattern. they don't find and in fact they have now requested the russian government to extend the time and a statute of limitations because they still haven't found the person who
really ordered this. many people think it was he was not only a handsome charismatic really a brilliant politician he also and he is to work by the way he used to be a minister and he knew personally but he have started writing these devastating reports about the corruption and the massive corruption in mister putin's regime and right before he died he was finishing up when i say report they are longer almost like little books. he was writing about the russians in ukraine. and showing that despite their denials the russian military was in full force. so again he had been mourned
but he said he would never kill me because i was a minister and this and that. unfortunately happened you can watch this and other programs online. thank you for coming. i am the executive director here. on behalf of our board of directors and the staff would like to welcome you it is a pleasure speaking about the new book. and then likely audience. addresses the failures and structures.